Re: [ceph-users] rbd feature overheads

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Blair Bethwaite
 wrote:
> Thanks Ilya,
>
> We can probably handle ~6.2MB for a 100TB volume. Is it reasonable to expect
> a librbd client such as QEMU to only hold one object-map per guest?

Yes, I think so.

Thanks,

Ilya
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] rbd feature overheads

[Blair Bethwaite]

Thanks Ilya,

We can probably handle ~6.2MB for a 100TB volume. Is it reasonable to
expect a librbd client such as QEMU to only hold one object-map per guest?

Cheers,

On 12 February 2018 at 21:01, Ilya Dryomov  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Blair Bethwaite
>  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Wondering if anyone can clarify whether there are any significant
> overheads
> > from rbd features like object-map, fast-diff, etc. I'm interested in both
> > performance overheads from a latency and space perspective, e.g., can
> > object-map be sanely deployed on a 100TB volume or does the client try to
> > read the whole thing into memory...?
>
> Yes, it does.  Enabling object-map on images larger than 1PB isn't
> allowed for exactly that reason.  The memory overhead is 2 bits per
> object, i.e. 64K per 1TB assuming the default object size.
>
> object-map also depends on exclusive-lock, which is bad for use cases
> where sharing the same image between multiple clients is a requirement.
>
> Once object-map is enabled, fast-diff is virtually no overhead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ilya
>



-- 
Cheers,
~Blairo
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Re: [ceph-users] rbd feature overheads

[Ilya Dryomov]

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Blair Bethwaite
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wondering if anyone can clarify whether there are any significant overheads
> from rbd features like object-map, fast-diff, etc. I'm interested in both
> performance overheads from a latency and space perspective, e.g., can
> object-map be sanely deployed on a 100TB volume or does the client try to
> read the whole thing into memory...?

Yes, it does.  Enabling object-map on images larger than 1PB isn't
allowed for exactly that reason.  The memory overhead is 2 bits per
object, i.e. 64K per 1TB assuming the default object size.

object-map also depends on exclusive-lock, which is bad for use cases
where sharing the same image between multiple clients is a requirement.

Once object-map is enabled, fast-diff is virtually no overhead.

Thanks,

Ilya
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

[ceph-users] rbd feature overheads

[Blair Bethwaite]

Hi all,

Wondering if anyone can clarify whether there are any significant overheads
from rbd features like object-map, fast-diff, etc. I'm interested in both
performance overheads from a latency and space perspective, e.g., can
object-map be sanely deployed on a 100TB volume or does the client try to
read the whole thing into memory...?

-- 
Cheers,
~Blairo
___
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com